Ask virtually anybody about what the most important part of the Constitution is and they will probably refer to the First Amendment, which gives us freedom of speech. The intensity of opinions last week, in response to Tiffany Lew’s column “The Rise of the Girly Men,” showed how the differences in beliefs can blow up and become a major issue.

College campuses should be places that allow sharply contrasting points of view to be freely debated. A diversity of viewpoints should be encouraged because it helps us to be educated beyond what we simply read in textbooks. A college campus itself is a fantastic forum to do this, because of the numbers of intelligent young people who are developing their own worldview.

Unfortunately, like in any other large public forum, groupthink can become pervasive. It’s comfortable to merely accept the beliefs and acceptable positions of the crowd. Sticking to an unpopular belief can cause you to be ridiculed, looked on with contempt, and ostracized from your peers.

If you truly believe that what you are saying is correct, however, you must be willing to accept these consequences.

Some people found the comments made in Tiffany’s column to be deeply offensive so they decided to speak out against her. There is nothing wrong with that.

I think that where real danger lies is in the willingness to simply shut down speech that is deemed “offensive.” Tiffany regretted her comments and later apologized for them – she clearly did not intend to anger people. But what if she stuck by what she had said or had written about something else that another group of people found offensive?

If certain values are wrong, then show them why you think they are wrong and try to convince other people that your ideas and values are better. The truth usually finds a way to defeat lies and distortions. The danger to free speech is that it can be silenced, not that speech itself silences others.

Sure, there are times when a bad idea becomes accepted and adopted, but that is the risk that we take by having a free society. We have the freedom to be both right and wrong, and we let decisions of right and wrong be made by all individuals in society.

Over time there is a general agreement of what is acceptable and what is not. This is determined by forming a majority consensus. This is not a perfect determination, but can you really think of a better way?

Sometimes another person’s beliefs will shock you and make you angry. Tolerance of other opinions is necessary, but liking them or agreeing with their words and actions is certainly not. Respecting the right of the minority opinion to exist ensures that when you find yourself in the minority, you will also be treated with respect.

Freedom of speech is important because it helps us to find truth, but finding truth can be an ugly and bitter affair. Just look at the political landscape in America and you will see just that. A divide in viewpoints and in opinion is not bad but both natural and necessary.

One of the reasons that the American political system has been so stable over time is that those who lose elections have a chance to win the next one and any one thereafter. In this way you can lose an argument and lose power, but you aren’t forced to accept that the other side is right because of it. You only have to accept that you lost an election. These principles apply to both politics on the large scale and the small – the large scale being in Washington D.C., and the small scale being human interaction in everyday life.

A great writer, George Orwell, once said, “Freedom is the right to tell people what they do not want to hear.” Listening to people whom you detest and whose ideas you find repulsive is certainly a lot better than being literally beaten over the head by them. Sometimes it is important to listen to people who say unseemly or terrible things because they just might be right. Of course, that’s just my opinion.

JARRETT STEPMAN would like to hear your opinion without being beaten over the head. You can send him your opinions at jstepman@ucdavis.edu.

Police found the body of Abraham Shakespeare, who won $31 million through the lottery in 2006, in Plant City, Fla. last week.

Jeepers creepers. Shakespeare was found buried under a five-foot slab of concrete in a home that belongs to the boyfriend of a woman who became Shakespeare’s friend soon after he won the lottery. Supposedly, he gave the woman $1 million in cash.

Interviews with Shakespeare’s brother and friends led to the conclusion he was better off broke.

This is a common thing that people say. “Mo’ money, mo’ problems” is how the Biblical proverb goes, I believe. In Shakespeare’s case, the combination of money, illiteracy and a criminal record would prove to become “mo’ problems.” But for many of us, especially college students, winning $31 million would be the solution to many of our problems. Save being murdered for it.

Now, this is a tangent and I don’t mean to disrespect the dead. His murder is a tragedy, but I still can’t help but think what I would do with $31 million dollars…

To me, winning that much money would mean more than I can list in this column. It would mean paying off loans and financing law school without a sweat, first and foremost. Yes, I would still go to school.

I could help my parents buy homes, get out of debt and go on vacation.

My eight-year-old baby brother would have a college savings. He wouldn’t have to worry about paying for school (and wouldn’t have any excuses, either).

My sister and I would finally have completely different wardrobes. That means I would actually go shopping. I’d buy a lot of shoes.

My grandparents would get anything they wanted. Literally.

And if I had that much money, I couldn’t imagine having any good karma ever again if I didn’t help some cause with it. I could help rebuild Afghanistan, since no one else really is.

In our society, the ends justify the means. We place our emphasis on having the most money and status, but often do not provide enough opportunities to achieve those means. Still, the end product of having the nicest things is more important than how you get it. Until, of course, you get caught stealing as a means.

I asked Tyler Scudero, a fifth-year communication major, what he would with that much money.

“The first thing I would do,” he said, “is buy back the home my parents recently lost. I would give a large portion to charities and keep a couple million in an account somewhere I couldn’t touch.”

Scudero would continue living his life as normally as he could.

“I would continue on with my life as if nothing had changed,” he said. “I would keep working and striving for my ultimate goal to someday own the San Francisco 49ers.”

Ryan Walsh, a recent UC Davis graduate, said the number one thing he would do with the money is quit his job.

“I would quit my job, move with my girlfriend to the Bahamas and hire an advisor in the states to deal with investments and charity donations,” Walsh said. “Peace out, America.”

When I asked if more money really meant more problems, Walsh answered, “It creates more worries. That’s why I would just get away from everything.”

In a disturbing train of thought, I’ve gone from a murder mystery to moving away to the Bahamas with $31 million. Interesting contrast.

If she won $31 million, SARA KOHGADAI would give The California Aggie enough money to stay in business forever. What would you do? Let her know at sbkohgadai@ucdavis.edu.

I hate spam. While they’re thoroughly annoying and occasionally trick me into clicking on links to black market drugs (did you know “Super Active” and “Professional” Viagra exist? Neither did I, apparently), these e-mails are relatively harmless – until now. This past week I was emotionally browbeaten by a series of e-mails I received from a beautiful girl (with poor grammar) named Daria. In lieu of paraphrasing I will provide the e-mails right here, without editing.

“Let’s talk more, my bunny. When you stopped a taxi for me, it was very nice, do not want to see me again? Daria. Click here.”

What? Are there taxis in Davis? I was dumbfounded. What the fuck is going on? The last time I hailed a cab (or “stopped a taxi”) for anybody was when I was playing GTA IV – and let me tell you, it was anything but “nice.” Maybe she’s got me confused with somebody else? I mean, for chrissakes, it says the sender is “dkarimi@ucdavis.edu” and the recipient is also “dkarimi@ucdavis.edu.” How the fuck is that possible?

Before I knew it, however, Daria was back for more:

“I want you, my sweet – come in, had not seen each other! Hello – I like you did not say – do you remember when we made love three? Who you like more? I am a Russian girl with blonde or America? Waiting for an answer – if you like – continue. Click here.”

Sorry, Daria, I don’t like, and I probably won’t continue. Whatever the hell that means. And honestly, the only time I “made love three” was when I was eating two McChickens with cheese and extra mayo at the same time. Also, you’re talking to me as if I’m at your front door: “come in, had not seen each other!” I’m pretty sure I’m staring at my screen at 7 a.m., half-naked, with crusted drool on my face and that bullshit yellow nugget hanging off the corner of my eye. And don’t even get me started on Russian girls with blonde. They drive me insane. I much prefer Russian girls with ginger, to be honest.

All right, Daria. Your little game is over. I clicked on that fucking link you sent me. I TRIED to continue. But guess where I ended up? A mail-order bride website! Are you kidding me? Do you honestly think I’m going to participate in this human trafficking? I THOUGHT YOU WERE REAL. I THOUGHT I COULD FALL IN LOVE WITH SOMEONE OVER THE INTERNETS.

I don’t want to get bogged down in the mail-order bride debate, as it can get pretty depressing, so I’ll scratch the surface for your enjoyment. Some believe that the women are, in effect, selling themselves to unknown male predators. But some feminists contend (now that’s a word journalists love) that the women are making fully informed decisions before they marry and that they’re not forced to do anything.

I agree with the feminists to an extent – but there’s something that makes me a little uneasy. Many mail-order brides are in poor countries and are eager to get out. Is it possible that this desperation could lead the mail-order brides to act against their own interests? I’ll leave it up to you to decide if that’s a sound argument or not.

By the way, there’s an ethical correlation (not a strong one, but one worth thinking about) between this argument and the morality of accepting black market organs. The World Health Organization has declared that “transplantation tourism” can violate human rights and most often exploits poor people. The National Organ Transplant Act of 1984 reflects this belief in America. It states that it is a crime “for any person to knowingly acquire, receive or otherwise transfer any human organ for valuable consideration for use in human transplantation.” Let that baby percolate in your head.

(Tangent: I’m listening to “Thong Song” by Sisqó, and I have to say, he’s WAY too fucking dramatic about thongs. He’s got a fucking violin ensemble for crying out loud. It’s not that big of a deal, Sisqó. But you’ve got a catchy hook, so you’re forgiven.)

The website I went to, realtsmolensk.ru, said it has, “The best selection on Russian brides” and that they’re “100 percent checked.”

Thank god they aren’t 80 percent checked. Then I’d be fucked.

DAVE KARIMI didn’t find love this time, but that’s okay because he’s banking on another e-mail from Daria. If you’d like to be his Daria, e-mail him at dkarimi@ucdavis.edu.

Editor,

In the midst of the University of California and statewide budget crises, each UC campus has adopted various techniques to try and get their voices heard. Our student representatives have tried speaking to the regents, along with massive sustained protests at Berkeley and UCLA.

Here at Davis, however, we have a different advantage: our proximity to the Capitol.

ASUCD Lobby Corps has taken advantage of this for the past few years. Lobby Corps is wholly a student enterprise, executed and funded by the students of UC Davis. This ambitious group of students meets every week to discuss upcoming legislation in the State Capitol. Together we learn about key underlying issues and how those issues will affect individual students. Frequently, the group travels to the Capitol to meet with legislators, and there we lobby for increased funding in higher education.

As UC Davis advocacy director Jason Murphy mentioned in the Jan. 5 edition of The Aggie, “not all students want to get involved with the administration for whatever reason. We’re trying to provide them some tools they can use to lobby on their own.”

Lobby Corps does just that. We meet on Wednesdays at 7 p.m. in the AM Conference Room on the 3rd Floor of the MU.

Sincerely,

EDWARD CARDMAN

JEREMIA KIMELMAN

ASUCD Lobby Corps Members

Twelve members of The California Aggie staff attended a “Beyond the Binary” event on Jan. 26 discussing Tiffany Lew’s Jan. 22 column, “Rise of the Girly Men.”

It was a valuable experience for those of us who were present.

From an early age we are taught to recognize and reject racial and religious prejudice and stereotyping. Hate speech, however, can be based on more than just race or religion. The reaction to this column taught us prejudice and stereotyping based on things such as gender identity, sexual orientation and gender presentation are just as harmful and unacceptable as prejudice and stereotyping based on race and religion.

Aggie columnists are free to express any opinion they want, except when those opinions target specific underrepresented groups with negative stereotypes and prejudiced statements. The Aggie failed to adhere to this policy with Lew’s column, and for that we apologize.

The column was never intended to be an attack on any group, but regardless of intent, it was an attack. While many of The Aggie’s critics chose to attack us in response, the Beyond the Binary event on Jan. 26 was different, in that it sought to educate and inform rather than vilify.

As a result of what we’ve learned as editors in the past week, The Aggie will take several new steps.

First, all editors and columnists will attend an awareness-training program developed with the help of the Lesbian Gay Bisexual Transgender Resource Center. This program will focus on identifying hate speech in news and opinion writing.

Several editors will also attend a Crafternoons session at the LGBTRC on an upcoming Friday afternoon to share information on how to submit guest opinions and press releases to The Aggie. We encourage anyone, especially those who feel underrepresented in The Aggie, to join us. The event date will be announced shortly.

Perhaps the biggest change we have planned is the reintroduction of the opinion editor position beginning this summer. The position was eliminated in 2005 due to budget cuts, leaving the editor in chief to handle the opinion section on top of their many more business-related responsibilities. With the opinion editor focused on recruiting, training and editing with columnists, the quality of opinion writing in The Aggie will improve dramatically.

The Aggie’s decision to retract the column has sparked much debate. Some readers said our actions showed a lack of accountability.

A lack of accountability would have been to do nothing, leaving the column on the website and pretending it wasn’t a problem. Instead, we removed the column in a timely manner, printed a formal retraction, ran a lengthy guest opinion opposing the column, attended a Beyond the Binary event, met with an LGBTRC representative and committed to making the above changes. We’re taking the necessary steps to learn from this situation and improve.

The controversy surrounding this column has taught us about the prejudices that exist on and around our campus. We hope readers have learned the same.